No changes sought to Hills charter

It started with one question and led to a discussion whether it’s time to not only review the 40-plus year-old Farmington Hills charter but to make some changes, such as references to gender.

But less than an hour later, the City Council decided against a review and any changes that would require a public vote.

Councilman Randy Bruce raised the issue last Monday about a possible review because of apparent additional steps in buying or selling property. “While we are doing that, let’s see if anything else needs changing or updating.”

Councilman Ken Massey talked about changes to public notices and the media, but City Attorney Steve Joppich reminded him that proposed changes requiring publication in newspapers died in the state Legislature.

“I’m not adverse to what Randy is talking about. If we put it in front of voters, it should be significant,” Councilman Richard Lerner said, questioning whether charter changes would make a difference in how the council operates.

“If we don’t change anything, what happens? Really, nothing,” he said. “It’s not a particularly good climate to do a charter change now.”

Lerner reminded the city council that last November’s passage of the Farmington Hills maximum-2-mill levy for roads squeaked by voters.

Councilman Mike Bridges also questioned whether the charter is so outdated that it leaves the city legally exposed. “Nothing has stood out to me as being problematic,” Joppich said.

The city attorney noted that the charter refers to men rather than women and as he had mentioned there is no change required in public notification through newspapers. Bridges requested a review of the charter, but when he stepped out of the room, the remaining council members determined it wasn’t necessary.

“I think it is unfair to ask the city attorney to go through all the time (it would require) to review it,” Massey said.

When Bridges returned he told his colleagues that he was not seeking a full review, but a simple review to determine that the charter complies with state laws.

“There is nothing I see in conflict with (the state’s) home rule law,” Joppich added.